[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The GreatViews expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.

Cyrus the Great was the founder of the Archaemenian dynasty and the Persian Empire. Cyrus' military victories eventually put him in possession of the largest empire in the world at that time. No doubt he was a remarkably humane ruler for his time. Certainly he has achieved his greatness not by words but by hard and difficult choices, actions, and sacrifice. Without any doubt all the above selected criteria in regard to Cyrus the Great is true. Even the Greeks, who for a long time considered the Persian Empire to be the chief threat to their own independence, never ceased to regard Cyrus as a thoroughly admirable ruler. His policy towards the people of his empire was one of tolerance and understanding, as reflected in his authorization of the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple in 538 BC. Cyrus the Great died in battle in 530 BC. He was succeeded by his son Cambyses. Cyrus the Great achieves highest rank among all world leaders throughout the human history because of the following reasons:

· High moral and ethical values.

· Created Persian Empire based on ethics.

· Expanded the Ethical Empire to include all men who wish to join it.

· In the Bible (e.g., Ezra 1:1-4), Cyrus is famous for freeing the Jewish captives in Babylonia and allowing them to return to their homeland. His name occurs twenty two times in the Bible.

· Establishment of a constitution and Judicial system based on high moral and ethical values.

· Freedoms of religion, job, and place of residency; being advocate of freedom of choice 2500 years ago is very admirable. On the contrary Constantine the Great 800 years later did not have religious toleration (persecuted the Jews) and introduced laws that made certain occupations (e.g., butchers, bakers) hereditary.

· Were it not for Cyrus, therefore, it seems at least possible that the Jewish people would have died out as a separate group in the fifth century BC

· Created Gold and Silver coins for trading.

· Ordered all Governors to treat the people as their own children, and no one could be executed for a first time crime.

· Slavery was not allowed. The Old Persian culture did not accept the concept of slavery. This is a good indication of a great ethical culture; we can admire this especially when we see some 250 years later Aristotle's ideas of slavery as natural law. This idea of Aristotle was used in the Roman Empire and after that in the British Empire as natural law.

· Despite the fact that Cyrus the Great was a genius he would consult with other leaders from different ethnic background to come up with a better solution for their problems.

· Cyrus was clearly a leader of immense military ability, and an outstanding statesman.

· Cyrus the Great had a Major influence on the thinking of Aristotle and Alexander the Great, and the Roman Empire form of government.

· He was exceptionally tolerant of local religions and local customs.

· He was moderate and respectful toward his defeated opponents, and if they were popular leaders among their people let them continue with their positions.

Cyrus the Great was the founder of the Persian Empire, the first ethical empire throughout human history. He overthrew three great empires (Medes, Lydians, and Babylonians), and united most of the ancient Middle East into a single state stretching from India to the Mediterranean Sea. Cyrus (Kurush in the original Persian) was born about 590 BC, in the province of Persis (now Fars), in southwest Iran. Cyrus was the grandson of Astyages, king of the Medes. Before Cyrus's birth, Astyages had a dream that his grandson would someday overthrow him. The king ordered that the infant be killed promptly after his birth. However, the official entrusted with the job of killing the infant had no heart for such a bloody deed, and instead handed him over to a shepherd and his wife with instructions that they put the child to death. But they, too, were unwilling to kill the boy, and instead reared him as their own. Ultimately, when the child grew up, he indeed caused the king's downfall.

Cyrus was clearly a leader of immense military ability. But that was only one facet of the man. More distinctive, perhaps, was the benign character of his rule. He was exceptionally tolerant of local religions and local customs, and he was disinclined to the extreme brutality and cruelty, which characterized so many other conquerors. The Babylonians, for instance, and even more notably the Assyrians, had massacred many thousands and had exiled whole peoples whose rebellion they feared. For example, when the Babylonians had conquered Judea in 586 BC, they had deported much of the population to Babylon. But fifty years later, after Cyrus had conquered Babylonia, he gave the Jews permission to return to their homeland. Were it not for Cyrus, therefore, it seems at least possible that the Jewish people would have died out as a separate group in the fifth century BC On the contrary, Constantine the Great emperor of Rome (c. 280-337) did not have religious toleration and can be said to mark the beginning of the official persecution of the Jews that was to persist in Europe for so many centuries.

To understand the greatness of Cyrus relative to his time (2500 years ago) we should compare him with Alexander The Great whom he came to power 250 years after Cyrus. Alexander had been brought up to believe that Greek culture represented the only true civilization, and that all of the non-Greek peoples were barbarians. Such, of course, was the prevailing view throughout the Greek world, and even Aristotle had shared it. When Alexander conquered the Persian capital Persepolis; he destroyed Persepolis (the ruin exists today). You can see the difference of these two leaders -- one conquers and allows freedom, the other conquers and destroys.

Another important point is that while Aristotle (250 years after Cyrus the Great) who was perhaps the greatest philosopher and scientist of the ancient world, he supported slavery. Aristotle originated the study of formal logic, enriched almost every branch of philosophy, and made numerous contributions to science, he supported slavery as being in accord with natural law, and he believed in the natural inferiority of women. Despite these last two extremely reactionary ideas, some of Aristotle's views were progressive e.g., "Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime," "All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind are convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth." the belief that it is worthwhile for human beings to conduct a systematic inquiry into every aspect of the natural world; and the conviction that we should utilize both empirical observations and logical reasoning in forming our conclusions.

Despite Aristotle's ideas of slavery as natural law, Cyrus the Great did not believe in slavery never took any slaves and hated brutality and injustice. This is another indication of an old rich Persian culture, which was based on ethics. Even today many forms of slavery exist in this globe, which is a disgrace to all humanity. For example in Time Magazine, June 21, 93 page 46 we read the following:

" A 1991 conference of Southeast Asian women's organizations estimated that 30 million women had been sold worldwide since the mid-1970s. Such figures are at best guesses and at worst only the tip of the iceberg."

Even if we compare Cyrus the Great with political leaders of our time he still achieves highest rank. One of the key attributes of Cyrus the Great was his fight against cruel rulers while not becoming a blind expansionist.

We would admire Cyrus the Great more when we see domination of Machiaavelli philosophy in our time around this globe. The Italian political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) is notorious for his blunt advice that a ruler interested in maintaining and increasing his power should make use of deceitfulness, cunning, and lies, combined with a ruthless use of force. Machiavelli principal fame rests upon his book "The Prince"(a handbook for dictators). The Prince may be considered a primer of practical advice for a head of state. The basic point of view of the book is that in order to succeed; a prince should ignore moral considerations entirely and depend upon strength and cunning. Machiavelli discussed history and politics in purely human terms, and simply ignored moral consideration. Unfortunately Machiavelli is considered to be one of the principal founders of modern political thought. In chapter 17 of The Prince, Machiavelli discusses whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared: "The reply is that one ought to be both feared and loved, but...it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to be wanting ...for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purposes, but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails." Often, the most denunciation came from those who practiced what Machiavelli preached- a hypocrisy of which Machiavelli might approve, in principle! Therefore we should not judge politicians by their words but by their hard and difficult choices, actions, and great sacrifices.

Because of all the above reasons and high moral and ethical values Cyrus the Great scored the highest rank among all the greatest world's leaders both in ancient and modern times. Therefore Cyrus the Great may be said to be among the greatest political leaders of all time throughout human history.

The study of Cyrus the Great and establishment of his ethical Persian empire some 2500 years ago is a good indication that in our time the concept of world order based on ethics, ethical state, peace and harmony among nations are not an impossible goal and illusion. In this century the most fundamental and essential ingredients of an evolution towards these goals are democracy, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of religion, cultural toleration, human rights, political feedback mechanism, open trade policy, and open communications among people in this globe. The ethics of life are the pursuit of awareness for ourselves and others. The ultimate goal is total awareness. Ethical Government is a means of achieving that goal by raising man to a higher state of total awareness. Ethical leaders can lead men toward Ethical Government and Society, which can lead man to total awareness. To increase man's power is always ethical. However, only men who use power to expand awareness are ethical. Men who use power to diminish awareness are unethical....

Greatness is not achieved by words but by hard work, difficult choices, actions and sacrifice. It takes more than intellect and general knowledge to make a leader ethical and moral. It takes courage and ethics. Certainly evolution's path towards greatness is not easy. The problem before us is how can courage and ethics be concentrated so that society can create ethical men, women and leaders. History has been dominated more often by unethical men and women who have rejected the principles of life "awareness" and embraced the principles of destruction (happiness without awareness and domination of some aspects of Machiavellian philosophy). Ethics are rules of optimal behavior. The ethics of life are the pursuit of awareness for ourselves and others. Awareness implies the ability to understand a problem domain (without dogma) and apply it to a solution domain, to predict and control. Our "total awareness" is measured by the extent to which we can predict and control our total environment -physical, biological and social. Ethical ends can only be achieved by ethical means.

In order to define rules of optimal behavior throughout human history, it is important to examine human emotion. Human emotions such as fear, hate, greed, jealousy, and anxiety are destructive and prevent expansion of awareness. The only human emotion that can serve a constructive purpose is love. "Love" is defined as the state of mind in which the welfare of other persons is sufficiently important to us that we are willing to sacrifice part of our own welfare for theirs. Love will be the binding force that will enhance the initial joining of the human societies. It is only through love that it becomes possible to achieve the intimacy of communication with persons, which enables us to amplify our individual awareness. Love makes it possible for the awareness of one to be communicated to others at the unconscious level. Only love and awareness give quality to human existence. It is only by understanding ourselves that we can eliminate all emotion except love.

The above brief description for greatness, ethics, and human emotions are used as a basic guideline to identify the most ethical and greatest political leaders throughout human history. One of the most difficult tasks involved in writing this is the relative importance of various political leaders. For this purpose the following moral and ethical criteria is chosen.

The primary evaluation criteria and rules of optimal behavior that it has been identified and selected are as follows:

· Was in position of high power (head of state).
· Influenced the world in a positive direction.
· Believed in Liberty & Justice for all.
· Proven record for high ethical and moral values.
· Despised cruelty.
· Non religious leader
· No thirst for bloodshed
· No interest to abuse their great power.
· Desired to change and create a better world.
· Positive effect on human history.
· Brave and was an icon for just principles.
· Their positive effects will be seen forever.
· Respect for human rights.
· World wide acceptance
· Icon of religious and cultural toleration.
· Belief that all men are borned equal.
· Had a great and innovative contributions toward human history.

If we examine and evaluate leaders throughout human history with the above criteria, we observe that some of the most powerful, successful and influential political leaders and empires of the past are the most ethical ones with total awareness, like Cyrus the Great, Thomas Jefferson, Gandi ....
Cyrus Marvasti 1993

Cyrus The Great Tomb
The Eternal Innocent

Last edited by cyrus on Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:37 pm; edited 5 times in total

AT that time Astyages sent for his daughter and her son; for he was desirous to see him, having heard that he was a handsome and excellent child. Accordingly Mandane went to her father, and took her son Cyrus with her. As soon as she arrived, and Cyrus knew Astyages to be his mother's father, he instantly, as being a boy naturally affectionate, embraced him, just as if he had been previously brought up with him, and had long loved him; and, observing him adorned with paint about his eyes and color applied to his face, and with artificial hair, things that are customary amongst the Medes (for purple coats, cloaks, collars about the neck, and bracelets on the wrists are all Median decorations; but amongst the Persians at home, even at this day, their habits are much coarser, and their diet more simple), observing the dress of his grandfather, and fixing his eyes on him, he said, "O mother, how handsome my grandfather is!" His mother then asking him which he thought the more handsome, his father or his grandfather, Cyrus answered, "Of the Persians, mother, my father is much the most handsome; but of all the Medes that I have seen, either upon the road or at the gates of the palace, my grandfather is far the most handsome."

Astyages, then, embracing Cyrus in return, put on him a fine robe, did him honor, and decorated him with collars and bracelets; and, whenever he went abroad, took him with him on a horse with a bridle of gold, just as he himself used to go about. Cyrus, being a boy fond of what was fine and honorable, was pleased with the robe, and extremely delighted at learning to ride; for, amongst the Persians, from its being difficult to breed horses,and difficult even to ride in a country so mountainous, it is a rare thing to see a horse.

Astyages, when he was supping with his daughter and Cyrus, wishing the boy to sup as agreeably as possible, that he might the less regret what he had left at home, had several dishes set before him, with sauces and meats of all kinds; when, as they relate, Cyrus said: "How much trouble, grandfather, you have at your meals, if you must stretch out your hands to all these dishes, and taste of all these kinds of meat!"

"What, then," said Astyages, "do you not think this entertainment much finer than what you have in Persia?" To this question Cyrus is said to have replied: "No, grandfather; for with us the way to be satisfied is much plainer and straighter than with you; since among us plain bread and meat conduct us to that object; you indeed pursue the same object with us, but, after rambling in many windings up and down, you at last scarcely reach the point at which we have arrived long before you."

"But, child," said Astyages, "it is not with pain that we ramble through these windings; if you taste," said he, "you will find that these things arc pleasant." "But, grandfather," said Cyrus, "I observe you yourself show an aversion to these dishes."

"From what do you guess," inquired Astyages, "that you express such an opinion?" "Because I remark," said he, "that when you touch your bread, you do not wipe your hand upon anything, but when you touch any one of these dishes, you immediately wipe your hand upon your napkin, as if you were quite uneasy that it had touched them." On receiving this answer Astyages said: "If you think so, then, at least eat heartily of plain meat, that you may return home a stout youth;" and as he said this, he directed various kinds of flesh, both of tame and wild animals, to be presented to him.

Cyrus, when he saw this variety of meats, is reported to have said: "And do you give me all these meats, grandfather, to do with them what I please?" "Yes, indeed," said Astyages; "I make you a present of them."

Then Cyrus, taking of the several meats, is said to have distributed them to the servants about his grandfather, saying to each, "I give this to you, because you take pleasure in teaching me to ride; this to you, because you gave me a javelin, for I have it still; this to you, because you serve my grandfather well; this to you, because you honor my mother;" and to have proceeded thus, >till he had distributed all the meat that he had received.

Astyages then said, "And do you give nothing to this Sakan, my cup-bearer, whom I value above all?" This Sakan was a handsome person, and had the honor to introduce to Astyages any that wanted to see him, and to exclude such as he did not think it seasonable to admit. Cyrus on this is said to have answered rather flippantly, as a boy not yet grown bashful: "For what reason is it, grandfather, that you value this Sakan so much?"

Astyages replied jestingly. "Do you not see," said he, "how properly and gracefully he pours out my wine?" For these cup-bearers to kings perform their business very cleverly; they pour in the wine without spilling, and give the cup, holding it on three fingers, and presenting it in such a manner as to put it most conveniently into the hand of the person who is to drink. "Bid the Sakan give me the cup, grandfather," said Cyrus, "that I also, by gracefully pouring in wine for you to drink, may gain your favor if I can."

Astyages bade the Sakan give him the cup; and Cyrus, taking it, rinsed the cup so well, as he had observed the Sakan to do, settled his countenance so gravely, and brought and presented the cup to his grandfather so prettily as to afford much laughter to his mother and Astyages. Cyrus then, laughing out, leaped up to his grandfather, and, kissing him, cried out, "O Sakan, you are undone; I will turn you out of your office; for I will pour out wine better than you in other respects, and I will not drink the wine myself." For these cup-bearers to kings, when they give the cup, dip a little out with a smaller cup, which they pour into their left hand and swallow; so that, in case they mix poison in the cup, it may be of no profit to them.

Upon this, Astyages said, joking: "And why, Cyrus, when you imitated the Sakan in I everything else, did not you swallow some of the wine?" "Because, to say the truth," said he, "I was afraid there might have been poison mixed in the cup; for, when you entertained your friends upon your birthday, I plainly perceived that he had poured in poison for you all." "And how, child," said he, "did you know this?" "Because," said he, "I saw you all disordered both in mind and body; for, in the first place, what you do not allow us boys to do, that you did yourselves; for you all cried out together, and yet could not understand each other; next you fell to singing very ridiculously; and, without attending to the singer, you swore that he sang admirably; then, though each told stories of his own strength, when you rose up and fell to dancing, you were not only unable to dance properly, but were unable even to stand upright; at length, you all entirely forgot yourselves, you, that you were the king, and they, that you were their ruler; and then, for the first time, I discovered that it was equal liberty of speech that you were practicing; for you never ceased to speak."

Astyages then said, "Is your father, child, never intoxicated when he drinks?" "No, indeed," said he.

"What does he, then?" "Why, he quenches his thirst, and suffers no further harm; for I believe, grandfather," says he, "it is not a Sakan that pours out wine for him." His mother then said: "But why, child, do you thus make war upon the Sakan?" Cyrus is said to have replied: "Why, indeed, because I hate him; for, very often, when I am desirous to run to my grandfather, this disagreeable fellow hinders me. But pray, grandfather," said he, "allow me to have the government of him for three days." "How would you govern him?" said Astyages. Cyrus replied: "Why, standing as he does, just at the entrance, when he had a mind to go in to dinner, I would tell him that it is not yet possible for him to get his dinner, because "he was busy with certain people;' then, when he came to supper, I would tell him that "he was bathing;" and, if he was very eager to eat, I would tell him that "he was with the women;" and so on, >till I had tormented him as he torments me when he keeps me from you."

Such amusement did he afford them at meals; at other times of the day, if he perceived his grandfather or his mother's brother in want of anything, it was difficult for any one to be beforehand with him in doing it; for Cyrus was extremely delighted to gratify them in anything that lay in his power. But when Mandane was preparing to return home to her husband, Astyages requested her to leave Cyrus with him. She made answer, that she was willing to gratify her father in everything; but that she should think it unkind to leave the child against his will.

Upon this, Astyages said to Cyrus: "Child, if you will stay with me, in the first place, the Sakan shall not have the command of your access to me; but, whenever you wish to come in, it shall be in your own power to do so; and the oftener you come," said he, "the more I shall think myself obliged to you. You shall also have the use of all my horses, and of as many more as you please; and, when you go away, you shall take as many of them as you please with you. At meals, too, you shall take whatever way you please to what appears to you to be sufficient. As for the animals that are now in the park, I give them to you; and will collect others of all kinds, which you shall hunt when you have learned to ride, and shall strike them down with your bow and javelin, as grown men do. Boys I will find you for playfellows; and whatever else you may desire, if you tell me of it, you shall not fail to have it."

When Astyages had said this, Cyrus' mother asked him whether he would stay or go. He did not at all hesitate, but at once said that he would stay. And being asked by his mother for what reason, it is said that he answered: "Because, mother, at home I am, and am accounted, superior to my equals in age both in throwing the javelin and in shooting with the bow; but here, I well know that, in horsemanship, I am inferior to the boys of my age; and be assured, mother, this grieves me very much. But if you leave me here, and I learn to be a horseman, I conceive that when I am in Persia, I shall easily master them there, who are so good at all exercises on foot; and when I come amongst the Medes, I shall endeavor by becoming the best of good horsemen for my grandfather's sake, to be a support to him."

His mother is reported to have said, "But how, child, will you be instructed here in the knowledge of justice, when your masters are there?" "Oh, mother," said Cyrus, "I understand that accurately already." "How do you know that?" said Mandane. "Because my teacher," said he, "appointed me to give judgment to others, as being very exact in the knowledge of justice myself. But yet," added he, "for not having decided rightly, in one case, I received some stripes. The case was this: A bigger boy, who had a little coat, taking the coat off a little boy, that had a larger one, put on him his own coat, and put on himself the little boy's coat. I, therefore, giving judgment between them, decided that it was best that each should keep the coat that best fitted him. Upon this, the master beat me, telling me that, when I should be constituted judge of what fitted best, I might determine in this manner; but that when I was to judge whose the coat was, I must consider what just possession is; whether he that took a thing from another by force should have it, or he who made it or purchased it should possess it; and then he told me that what was according to law was just, and that what was contrary to law was an act of violence; and impressed upon me accordingly, that a judge ought to give his opinion in conformity with the law. So, mother," said he, "I understand what is just in all cases very exactly; or, if I am at all deficient, my grandfather here will teach it me."

"But, child," said she, "the same things are not accounted just with your grandfather here, and yonder in Persia; for among the Medes, your grandfather has made himself master of all; but amongst the Persians, it is accounted just that each should have equal rights with his neighbors. Your father is the first to execute what is appointed by the whole state, and submits to what is appointed; his own inclination is not his standard of action, but,the law. Take care then, that you are not beaten to death at home, if you come thither having learned from your grandfather not what belongs to a king, but what belongs to a tyrant; an ingredient in which is, to think that you yourself ought to have more than others."

"Oh, mother," said Cyrus, "your father is much better able to teach one to have less than to have more. Do you not see," said he, "that he has taught all the Medes to have less than himself? Be well assured, therefore, that your father will not dismiss me, nor any one, from about him, instructed to encroach upon others."

what no angry rant? no patriotic speeches? im dissapointed, i at least thought somebody would have the guts to argue with me..._________________"When on the battlefield if you have the sole intention of breaking into the enemy lines, you will manifest martial valour. Furthermore if you are slain in battle you should be resolved to having your corpse facing the enemy" - Yamamoto tsunetomo

My history may be off, but Croesus, the King of Lydia tried to invade persia. He was already extremely rich and tried to add to this. He talked with the oracle of delphi who told him: "If Croesus goes to war he will destroy a great empire." When he went to war, he did destroy a great empire, his own. He was utterly defeated by cyrus. After his defeat Cyrus ordered him burned alive, but showed mercy when he heard Croesus screaming.

perhaps one detail is wrong and i am ready to accept that cyrus was goaded into war by croesus. However, cyrus would have obviously attacked lydia sooner or later anyway and the fact that cyrus fought an offensive war here proves it.

Also, ive read that croesus ordered himself to be burned but cyrus stopped him. But there are many versions..._________________"When on the battlefield if you have the sole intention of breaking into the enemy lines, you will manifest martial valour. Furthermore if you are slain in battle you should be resolved to having your corpse facing the enemy" - Yamamoto tsunetomo

By what standard are you judging him "The Greatest Liberator"? Why does the article compare him to Alexander, a King, but not the greatest Republican Liberator in History: Publius Cornelius Scipio the Younger?

No matter how you look at it, Cyrus was a King, and in such a Kingdom the people are nothing but vassals to the state. With a good ruler such as Cyrus, life is tolerable, but when fortune is adverse and you get horrible leaders such as Darius, Xerxes, or Artaxerxes, you are reduced to abject slavery.

The ideal of liberty was not created in your country, it was created in Greece. It reached it's epoch during the Enlightment, in the west. Yes admire the virtuous men of Persia, but admire the greatest for being great, not simply because they were Persian.

Please, Praxus, tell me you have a better example of a liberator to give me from Roman Civilization than Publius Cornelius Scipio the Younger. There were many Publius Cornelius Scipios; I assume you speak of Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Numantius, (Scipio the Younger), 185-129 BC…..am I right? The same man who undertook the Third Punic War, and nailed the final nail in Carthage’s coffin? The same man who besieged the great city of Carthage, sacked it, killed or enslaved every last inhabitant, dismantled the entire huge city stone by stone, and according to some, poured salt over its ground? This is your “liberator?” Of course I cannot unilaterally fault him for his actions. He came from a long line of Greco-Roman conquerors who believed that anything that posed an alternative to their own civilization was barbarous, and should therefore be destroyed. They couldn’t stand to see the rise of another beautiful, competitive civilization in the South, and so annihilated it. I’ll grant you that he was a capable soldier and general, and a brilliant politician, but the discussion here is not focused on military or political prowess, but ethical and benevolent rule. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease tell me you have a better example of a benevolent ruler in all of Greco-Roman history than Scipio the Younger!

To further educate you, Kourosh was not the only of Iran’s benevolent rulers during the Achaemenid Dynasty. The other Great Kings you mentioned were also exemplary leaders. They set out to bring together many ethnic groups and nations under a common idea; the pursuit of happiness for all. Dariush and Xashayar were literarily the trailblazers of the world’s civilization. The ideas of infrastructure, administration, human rights, postal system, communication and transportation, law of the land, and the moral and ethical ruler all flourished during their leadership. “Fortune” was never “adverse” during the administration of these great men.

As far as the “Republic” of Rome and Greece you speak of, they were “Republics” in name only. They spoke of “democracy,” but they did not practice it in truth. They all had their own kings, but they went by the name of emperors, Caesars, etc. Their senate was a joke. They were not held liable to the public in the modern sense, present in modern western nations. They were no more a “republic” than the current “Islamic Republic” or the “Chinese Republic.”

There aren’t that many liberators in humanity’s history, I’m afraid. The three big ones I can think of are Kourosh, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King Jr. Kourosh abolished slavery from the start of the creation of his great empire, some 2500 years ago. Yet slavery was a cornerstone of the ideals of Greece, Rome, and the subsequent western civilization until just 140 years ago! It took the other two liberators I just mentioned to finally rid western civilization of this great evil and its sequela. All others, in my opinion, fall somewhere in the shadow of these three great men._________________I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Please, Praxus, tell me you have a better example of a liberator to give me from Roman Civilization than Publius Cornelius Scipio the Younger. There were many Publius Cornelius Scipios; I assume you speak of Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Numantius, (Scipio the Younger), 185-129 BC…..am I right? The same man who undertook the Third Punic War, and nailed the final nail in Carthage’s coffin?

That would be wrong. I am refering to Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus the Younger (236-184 BC), son of Publius Cornelius Scipio the Elder, nephew to Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus. The savior of the Roman Republic during the 2nd Punic War and Liberator of Italy and Spain.

It's better to know your history, then to google it.

If you would like me to throw in another name, how about Epaminondas. He waged war against Sparta in ancient greece, liberated the Helots, founded cities for them, and brought Sparta to it's knees.

Quote:

As far as the “Republic” of Rome and Greece you speak of, they were “Republics” in name only. They spoke of “democracy,” but they did not practice it in truth.

A Republic is derived from the latin "res publica", which in english means "public thing". It essentially is the mixture of three main forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Monarchial powers of the Consuls are balanced by the arstocratic power of the senate (by the way, plebians could become senator by the time of the 2nd Punic War) and the democratic power of the popular assembly. This balance is nessecary in any free Government to preserve the rights of the people.

And a Republic is not equivilent to Democracy, that is a fallacious modern thought.

Quote:

They all had their own kings, but they went by the name of emperors, Caesars, etc. Their senate was a joke. They were not held liable to the public in the modern sense, present in modern western nations.

Rome existed for over 500 years as a Republic. There was no such thing as an "Emperor" or a "Caeser" in Rome for this entire period. The Senate was held to account by the people, mostly the patricians. The popular assembly was elected by the plebians and held to account by them. By the time of the 2nd punic war, these people had more or less the same rights. Both clases could become Consuls and both could become Senators.

Quote:

They were no more a “republic” than the current “Islamic Republic” or the “Chinese Republic.”

As I mentioned before, there were many from the House of Scipio who were named Publius Cornelius Scipio. The one more commonly known as “The Younger,” was the one I mentioned, 185-129BC. Admittedly, there was another Roman from the same family, named Publius Cornelius Scipio 236-184BC, the person you apparently are referring to. Publius Cornelius Scipio 236-184BC is at times referred to as “The Younger,” in relation to his father, who bore the same name, and at times referred to as “The Major,” in relation to his adoptive grandson, Publius Cornelius Scipio the Younger, or “The Minor,” 185-129BC, whom I initially thought you were referring to. If you are unaware of the multitudes of these Scipios and their similar nomenclature, then it seems you are the one who “ought to know your history,” professor.

In any case, my arguments apply to both of these “Younger” Scipios. Scipio of 236-184BC, was again, no liberator. Again, he was an excellent soldier, superb general, and brilliant politician. And he didn’t have the obvious blood thirst of Scipio of 185-129BC. But “the liberator of Spain” he was not. “Conqueror of Spain,” yes. He captured New Carthage in Spain, substituting Carthaginian rule in the Iberian Peninsula with Roman rule. Admittedly, he was relatively merciful to his vanquished enemy, if judged by Roman standards.

Epaminondas, too, was an excellent soldier and superb general, though he fell in battle before he could become a real politician. He fought for Thebes and rid it of Spartan aggression. In that sense, he was a great patriot, and deservedly, beloved by his countrymen. But I still don’t see him as a liberator. And if he was a liberator, whom did he liberate, and from whom? The Greeks…from the Greeks?

I think I see why we differ in whom we see as a liberator, and whom we do not. I believe our definition of the term “liberator” varies. You seem to be defining individuals with great personal ability, love for their own country, and deliverance of victory and gain for their country as liberators. Though I think that such individuals deserve praise for their accomplishments and contributions to their country, I don’t view them as liberators in the strictest sense.

You seem to be missing the guiding spirit by which this original post was started, (by the site Administrator) Cyrus. He was attempting to demonstrate the ethical and moral quality of a benevolent ruler, who did not seek to simply conquer, but bring equal rights and true justice to his subjects. To bring “the pursuit of happiness.” This is the hallmark of a true liberator as I see it, and if I’m not mistaken, the spirit of this original post. The signature (but not the necessary requirement) of a true liberator is bestowing liberty, justice, and freedom not just to his own people, but to a different culture or ethnic group. The way Kourosh the Great did for his foreign subject nations, especially the Jews, and the way Lincoln did for the slaves.

As far as my interpretation of the “Roman Republic,” I stand by my initial assessment. It was an oligarchy of senators, which meant it was ruled by a group of kings, since there were no checks and balances as you elude to; only an illusion of checks and balances. So be it Caesar, Emperor, or Senate, the practice of rule was the same: absolute power, as in any kingdom.

And thank you for the linguistics lesson on “republic,” professor. Since you enjoy linguistics so much, ponder this. “Democracy” is Greek, from the word “demos,” which means “people,” or “public,” and “kratiae,” which means “to hold,” referring to “hold power.” (Take this from somebody who spent many of his childhood years living in Greece). So, a republic, which is a “public thing,” should, by definition, be a democracy, which is a “public holding.” A Republic without true democracy at its core is not a true Republic, as is the case with Rome, the Chinese Republic, and the IRI.

And what is wrong with anyone who wishes “to google it?” What do you have against Google? Since the advent of the Internet, information exchange has been revolutionized. There is an ocean of information available to anyone with a computer and the desire to seek that information. It is one of a number of information sources available to everyone. If you chose to omit this particular source of knowledge, then that is your shortcoming.

But I’ll share my sources if you are interested. They include Xenophon, Diodorus, Livy, Polybius, various Encyclopedias, and yes, the Internet._________________I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

In this article, Marvasti describes Cyrus as a “remarkably humane ruler for his time,” and enumerates several general principles, and specific policies and acts that distinguished his “Ethical Empire.” The list references the content of the Cyrus Cylinder, the Decree of Cyrus, as well as other biblical and extra-biblical documentation of Cyrus’ proclamations and accomplishments –events characteristic of the reform he brought to the lands and people groups that came under his conquest, and that doubtless affected the Jewish people directly.

Of the most direct and immediate impact would be the reversal of the policy of the former As(s)yrian and Babylonian kings to deport and scatter conquered people groups, rendering them oppressed minorities of diminishing strength, incapable of future revolt. At the extreme opposite, Cyrus, the emancipator, made enthusiastic supporters of his new subjects through his policy of repatriation. One of Cyrus’ first deeds in his first year –of which the Lord foretold in prophecy by Isaiah nearly 200 years earlier –was to release the Jewish captives to return to their homeland; in this Cyrus is very possibly responsible for the preservation of the Jewish people as a distinct group that may otherwise –as Marvasti expresses –‘have died out in the 5th century BC.” Marvasti also cites, as the definitive example of Cyrus’ “tolerance and understanding,” this same decree empowering the Jews to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.

Other reforms may well have had direct or indirect affect on the Jews of the Exile. That he was “exceptionally tolerant of local religions and local customs, moderate and respectful toward his defeated opponents,” what Marvasti calls his “benign” character, however ‘moderate’ in political expression, would be a radical change from the many ‘malignant’ despots that Cyrus displaced in his “fight against cruel rulers . . . (of) blind expansionism.” This potentate –who pursued understanding through consultation with ethnic representatives and leaders, and allowed the subject people to retain representative leadership positions, thus nurtured a great degree of self determination –and his extraordinary disposition –in Marvasti’s phraseology –“to include all men who wish to join (the Ethical Empire),” may account for the significant percentage of Jewish citizens that remained in Babylonia, though free to return to Judah. (Dr. Friedman - I'd appreciate your insights along these lines!) With his suppression of terrorism and promotion of “freedoms of religion, work and residence . . . (Cyrus) being an advocate of free choice” –the absence of persecution may have predisposed many to remain under his rule and protection. With a Jewish culture-friendly ruler came a more pleasant and viable –if not tempting opportunity to as(s)imilate without the oppressive threat of being forcibly stripped of their identity, customs or beliefs as Jews. Their new home under a just and moral ruler may have seemed preferable to returning to the harsh conditions that Zerubbabel found, economic hardship in the rubble of a Jerusalem occupied by a mixed breed of corrupt Samaritan Jews [1]. If so, Cyrus may also be due credit for what became a flourishing Babylonian Jewish community, and the resulting developments of later times.
__________________________

Question 3.5.1. Why do you think King Cyrus decided to allow Jewish immigration to Israel? Can you think of any political reason that may have been to his advantage for doing this?

Cyrus the Great’s decisions were compelled by the higher decrees of the God of Israel, over 150 years beforehand: “I say of Koresh (Cyrus), ‘He is my shepherd, he will do everything I want. He will say of Yerushalayim, “You will be rebuilt,” and of the temple “Your foundations will be laid.”’” [Isa. 44:28, CJB]; “Thus says ADONAI to Koresh, his anointed, whose right hand he has grasped, so that he subdues nations before him . . . “It is for the sake of Ya’akov my servant, yes, for Isra’el my elect, that I call you by your name and give you a title, although you don’t know me.”” [Isa. 45:1 & 4, CJB]; “I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city, and set my exiles free. . .” [Isa. 45:13, NIV]. By these prophesies, the Lord ridicules worshippers of voiceless gods of wood and stone that cannot speak, much less match his superior and unique power to predict, and accomplish a predestined plan: “Come together, all of you, and listen: Which of the idols has foretold these things? The Lord’s chosen ally will carry out his purpose against Babylon; his arm will be against the Babylonians. I even I have spoken; yes, I have called him. I will bring him, and he will succeed in his mission.” [Isa. 48:14 –15, NIV].

Whether or not Cyrus was shown the prophecies of Isaiah, as is thought, by Daniel [6], which certainly may have had a confirming influence, his decision to emancipate the Jewish population of Babylon was pre-written by the Almighty, who authors and controls of the course of history.

Similar undertakings by Cyrus, extended to other religious interests at the initiation of his reign in Babylon, are recounted in his own words on the Cyrus Cylinder: he speaks of his restoration of “holy cities . . . whose sanctuaries had been in ruins over a long period, the gods whose abode is in the midst of them. I returned to the places and housed them in lasting abodes. I gathered together all their inhabitants and restored to them their dwellings. The gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabonidus had, to the anger of the lord of the gods, brought into Babylon, I at the bidding of Marduk, the great lord made to dwell in peace in their habitations, delightful abodes [2].” Nabonidus has carried the idols from various provinces and as(s)embled them all in Babylon in an attempt to ward off the takeover, which had provoked the priests of Babylon as it violated Marduk’s turf. In Cyrus’ perception, it pleased the gods to be returned to their sanctuaries, and as(s)uaged the anger of Marduk. The logic follows that Cyrus would see the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem in much the same way. Even though Cyrus maintained fidelity to Zoroasterism, and disdained other belief systems as inferior [3], as a pagan king, these activities were probably seen to have wisely curried the favor of the local gods, at least by their worshippers.

There were definite political advantages to be gained as well. Primarily, the Jewish population returned to Judah would fortify the empire’s western border, which if occupied, was better defended against the desert beyond, or a possible Egyptian attack [3, 5]. Additionally, his religious tolerance would be an inroad to the hearts of all his subjects, as religious practices were, and still are, a major part of culture, manifested in the daily life and activities of communities, families and individuals. As his dominion spread, the example of conciliation set in Babylon would precede him; his reputation as a liberator bringing peace to mankind would attract the sympathies of the people, predisposing them to welcome his rule, and simultaneously disinclining his conquests to resist or revolt –all of which benefited the empire’s subjects [4], but ultimately brought advantageous payoffs, not the least of which reflected economically in tributes, to the Persian monarchs.
_________________________________________
Resources:
1. The Captivity to the Return. http://www.bible-history.com/old-testament
2. The First Declaration of Human Rights by Cyrus II (translation of the cuneiform script written on the original cylinder). http://oznet.net/cyrus/cyframe.htm
3. Gottheil, Richard; Meyer, Eduard. Cyrus. http://jewishencyclopedia.com
4. Cyrus II of Persia. http://en.wikipedia.org/siki/cyrusIIofpersia
5. Lendering, Jona: Cyrus. http://livius.org/ct-cz/cyrusI/cyrus.html
6. Halley, H. H., Halleys Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1965. P. 232.
7. CJB (Complete Jewish Bible).
8. NIV Study Bible.

I chose this article because Marvasti has, in my opinion, an excellent grasp of the nature of Cyrus' rule. So, when Marvasti noted that Cyrus:

"nurtured a great degree of self determination –and his extraordinary disposition (one)to include all men who wish to join (the Ethical Empire),” may account for the significant percentage of Jewish citizens that remained in Babylonia, though free to return to Judah. "

I agree with this analysis.These are, I believe, the reasons that Cyrus was able to gain the respect and loyalty of his Jewish subjects in Babylon. As well, such autonomy as he granted to his Jewish population caused (very quickly, too), the Jewish community to grow economically and attain a good community social position in the kingdom. Some in the Jewish community even worked in positions in the royal government (as Nehemiah later procured, in the same Dynasty). Jeremiah also prophesied that the Jewish community in exile would grow and attain a good status. Cyrus was a great part of this happening. As Isaiah noted in chapters 44 ane 45, Cyrus would be 'raised up' by G-d to help Israel at a crucial time in history.

When you state that Cyrus: "allowed the subject people to retain representative leadership positions, (he) thus nurtured a great degree of self determination ", you have hit the proverbial nail right on the head in your analysis.

Ceena, you really did a good analysis of the benefits of Jewish return to Israel (question 3.5.1) when you said:

" (if) the Jewish population returned to Judah, (this) would fortify the empire’s western border, which if occupied, was better defended against the desert beyond, or a possible Egyptian attack "

As a king, Cyrus would certainly have been concerned to defend his western border to inevitable territorial aggression (the occupation of the via Maris route by Cyrus is a major factor in such expected aggression). The Jewish presence in Israel was to his great strategic advantage.

An old Iranian portrait of Cyrus the Great.
Place of birth: Presumably Anshan
Place of death: Unknown; along the Syr Darya
Cyrus the Great (Old Persian: Kuruš[1], modern Persian: کوروش, Kourosh; ca. 576 or 590 BC — July 529 BC), also known as Cyrus II of Persia and Cyrus the Elder, was the founder of the Persian Empire under the Achaemenid dynasty and the creator of the Cyrus Cylinder, sometimes considered to be the first declaration of human rights.[2][3] As the ruler of the Persian people in Anshan, he conquered the Medes and unified the two separate Iranian kingdoms.

In historical artifacts discovered in the ancient ruins of Babylon and Ur, Cyrus identifies himself as King of Iran, where he reigned from 559 BC until his death. He is also the first ruler whose name was suffixed with the words the Great (Vazraka in Old Persian, Bozorg in modern Persian), a title adopted by many others after him, including the eventual Acheamenid Shah, Darius the Great, and Alexander the Great, who overthrew the Achaemenid dynasty two centuries after the death of Cyrus.

A relief of Faravahar, the symbol of Zoroastrianism, which influenced Cyrus to the extent that it became the non-imposing religion of Persia.The name Cyrus is a Latin transliteration of the Greek Κῦρος, which is a version of the Old Persian Koroush or Khorvash. In Persian, khour means "sun" and vash is a suffix of likeness.[4] In modern Persian, Cyrus is referred to as Kourosh-e Bozorg — the modern Persian-derived name for Cyrus the Great. In the Bible, he is mentioned as simply Koresh.

[edit]
Personal life
Cyrus was the son of a Persian king named Cambyses I and a Mede princess from the Achaemenid Dynasty, which ruled the kingdom of Anshan, in what is now southwestern Iran. The dynasty had previously been founded by Achaemenes (ca. 700 BC), who was succeeded by his son Teispes of Anshan. Inscriptions indicate that when the latter died, two of his sons shared the throne as Cyrus I of Anshan and Ariaramnes of Persia. They were succeeded by their respective sons Cambyses I of Anshan and Arsames of Persia.

Cambyses is considered by Herodotus and Ctesias to be of humble origin, but they also consider him as being married to Princess Mandane of Media, a daughter of Astyages, king of the Medes and Princess Aryenis of Lydia. Cyrus II was the result of this union. Cyrus had two sons: Cambyses and Smerdis, as well as several daughters, of whom Atossa is significant, as she later married Darius the Great and was mother of Xerxes I of Persia.

[edit]
Early life
In his Histories, Herodotus gives a detailed description of the rise to power of Cyrus according to the best sources available to him. The story of Cyrus' early life found in the Histories, it should be noted, resembles other legendary accounts that form a particular genre of tales in which abandoned children of noble birth inevitably return to claim their royal positions, such as those of Oedipus or Romulus and Remus. According to Herodotus, Cyrus was said to be part-Persian (Parsua) and part-Mede. His overlord was his own grandfather, Astyages, who had conquered all Assyrian kingdoms apart from Babylonia.

After the birth of Cyrus, Astyages had a dream that his Magi interpreted as a sign of an eventual overthrow by his grandson. He then ordered his steward Harpagus to kill the infant Cyrus. Harpagus, morally unable to kill a newborn, summoned a herdsman of the king named Mithridates and ordered him to dispose of the child. Troubled by this command, Mithridates confided in his wife, Cyno. Cyno, who had recently given birth to a stillborn baby, told her husband to expose their dead child to the elements while they took Cyrus to raise as their own. Mithridates then presented the stillborn to Harpagus as proof that the task had been accomplished.

[edit]
King of Persia

A Griffin emblem, one of the symbols of the Persian Empire.In 559 BC, Cyrus succeeded his father, Cambyses the Elder as king of Anshan. He apparently soon managed to succeed Arsames to the throne of Persia, though the latter was still living. Arsames was father of Hystaspes and would live to see his grandson become Darius the Great, Shahanshah of Persia. However, Cyrus was not yet an independent ruler. Like his predecessors before him, Cyrus had to recognize Median overlordship.

Several years later, when Astyages discovered that his grandson was still alive, he ordered that the son of Harpagus be beheaded and served to his father on a dinner platter. Harpagus, seeking vengeance, convinced Cyrus, who by then was living again with his noble and biological parents, to rally the Persian people, who were then in a state of vassalage to the Medes, to revolt, which occured between 554 BC and 553 BC.

From 550 BC to 549 BC, with the help of Harpagus, Cyrus led the Persians and his armies to capture Ecbatana, and effectively conquered the Median Empire. While he seems to have accepted the crown of Media, by 546 BC he had officially assumed the title of King of Persia. Thus, the Persians gained dominion over the Iranian Plateau.

[edit]
Cyrus' wars

Nabonidus in relief showing him praying to the moon, sun and VenusCyrus' wars were only just beginning. Astyages had been in alliance with his brother-in-law Croesus of Lydia (son of Alyattes II), Nabonidus of Babylon, and Amasis II of Egypt. These reportedly intended to unite their armies against Cyrus and his Persians. But before the allies could unite, Cyrus defeated Croesus at Pterium and captured him, and occupied his capital at Sardis -- overthrowing the Lydian kingdom (546 BC). According to Herodotus, Cyrus spared Croesus' life and kept him as an advisor, but it seems to be refuted by the Nabonidus Chronicle, a contemporary source, which tells that the king of Lydia was slain.

In October of 539 BC, Cyrus defeated Nabonidus at Opis and occupied Babylon. According to the Babylonian inscription, this was probably a bloodless victory. Cyrus assumed the titles of 'king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four sides of the world'. Judging from the countries listed as subject to his successor Darius on the first tablet of the great Behistun Inscription (written before any new conquests could have been made other than Egypt), Cyrus' dominions must have comprised the largest empire the world had yet seen -- stretching from Asia Minor and Judah in the west, as far as the Indus valley in the east.

[edit]
Administration of the Empire

Persepolis (1878), engraving by Frederick Stacpoole ARA (1813ֱ907)Cyrus organized the empire into provincial administrations called satrapies. The administrators of these provinces, called satraps, had considerable independence from the emperor, and from many parts of the realm Cyrus demanded no more than tribute and conscripts.

The Cyrus Cylinder artifact.[edit]
The Cyrus Cylinder
Main article: Cyrus Cylinder
Upon his taking of Babylon, Cyrus issued a declaration, inscribed on a clay barrel known as the Cyrus Cylinder, and containing an account of his victories and merciful acts, as well as a documentation of his royal lineage. It was discovered in 1879 in Babylon, and today is kept in the British Museum. Although the cylinder reflects a long tradition in Mesopotamia where, from as early as the third millennium BC, kings such as Urukagina began their reigns with declarations of reforms, the cylinder of Cyrus is widely referred to as the "first charter of human rights". In 1971, the UN translated it into all of its official languages. The cylinder decrees the normal themes of Persian rule: religious tolerance, abolishment of slavery, freedom of choice of profession and expansion of empire.

[edit]
Death

Tomb of Cyrus the Great at Pasargadae.Cyrus died in battle, but the Achaemenid empire was to reach its zenith long after his demise. In Herodotus' account, Cyrus met his fate in a battle with the Massagetae — a tribe from the southern deserts of Kharesm and Kizilhoum in the southernmost portion of the steppe region.[1]

The queen of the Massagetae, Tomyris, prevailed after Cyrus had previously defeated Tomyris' son Spargapises. The Massagetae were related to the Scythians in their dress and mode of living; they fought on horseback and on foot. Ctesias reports only that Cyrus met his death in the year 529 BC, while warring against tribes north-east of the headwaters of the Tigris.

In his Histories, Herodotus wrote that Tomyris' Massagetae battled fiercely with Cyrus and his army. In the end, much of the Persian forces at the battle were killed, including Cyrus himself. Tomyris ordered the body of Cyrus to be found, and then dipped his head in blood, as revenge for the death of her son at the hands of Cyrus.[5]

He was buried in the town of Pasargadae, where his tomb remains today. Both Strabo and Arrian give descriptions of his tomb, based on reports of men who saw it at the time of Alexander the Great's invasion. Over the years, the tomb of Cyrus the Great has been slightly restored to reduce the natural damage it had received in time.

[edit]
Legacy

Cyrus the Great allowing Hebrew pilgrims to return to and rebuild Jerusalem.Cyrus was distinguished no less as statesman than as a soldier. His leadership was particularly evident in his treatment of newly conquered peoples. By pursuing a policy of generosity instead of repression, and by favoring local religions, he was able to make his new subjects into enthusiastic supporters.

[edit]
Religion
Main articles: Cyrus in the Judeo-Christian tradition and Cyrus the Great in the Qur'an
A good example of his religious policy is his treatment of the Jews in Babylon. The Bible records that a remnant of the Jewish population returned to the Promised Land from Babylon, following an edict from Cyrus to rebuild the temple, fully reproduced in the Book of Ezra. As a result of Cyrus' policies, the Jews honored him as a dignified and righteous king. He is the only Gentile to be designated as a messiah, a divinely-appointed king, in the Tanakh. Koresh (Hebrew for Cyrus) is a common name for streets in Israel and is a relatively common Israeli family name.

[edit]
Politics
Cyrus' conquests began a new era in the age of empire building where a vast superstate, comprising many dozens of countries, races, and languages, were ruled under a single administration headed by a central government in Persia.[6] Centuries later, the administrative techniques created by Cyrus and his successors Darius and Xerxes, including the Satrapy system of local governorship were adopted by the Greeks and Romans.

His exploits, both real and legendary, have been used as moral instruction or as a source of inspiration for political philosophies.[citation needed] The Cyropaedia of Xenophon, based on the latter's knowledge of the Great King's upbringing, was an influential political treatise in ancient times, and again during the Renaissance.

[edit]
Philosophy
The English philosopher Sir Thomas Browne named his 1658 discourse after the benevolent ruler. Entitled The Garden of Cyrus, it may well be a Royalist criticism upon the autocratic rule of Oliver Cromwell.

Cyrus is still being cited today as a significant past leader. In 1992, he was ranked #87 on Michael H. Hart's list of the most influential figures in history. Also, in accepting her 2003 Nobel Peace Prize, Shirin Ebadi said:

I am an Iranian. A descendant of Cyrus The Great. The very emperor who proclaimed at the pinnacle of power 2500 years ago that "... he would not reign over the people if they did not wish it." And [he] promised not to force any person to change his religion and faith and guaranteed freedom for all. The Charter of Cyrus The Great is one of the most important documents that should be studied in the history of human rights.
[edit]
Footnotes
^ a b Livius.org article by Jona Lendering
^ The Cyrus Cylinder, The First Charter of Human Rights at the Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies.
^ Forgotten Empire, Cyrus Cylinder at the British Museum
^ The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies: Cyrus the Great
^ Tomyris, Queen of the Massagetae, Defeats Cyrus the Great in Battle Herodotus, The Histories
^ Mesopotamia, The Persians by Richard Hooker
[edit]
Sources
Primary, Babylonian Sources

ABOUT THIS BOOK
Based on an extraordinary collaboration between Steve Forbes, chairman, CEO, and editor in chief of Forbes Media, and classics professor John Prevas, Power Ambition Glory provides intriguing comparisons between six great leaders of the ancient world and contemporary business leaders.

• Great leaders not only have vision but know how to build structures to effect it. Cyrus the Great did so in creating an empire based on tolerance and inclusion, an approach highly unusual for his or any age. Jack Welch and John Chambers built their business empires using a similar approach, and like Cyrus, they remain the exceptions rather than the rule.
• Great leaders know how to build consensus and motivate by doing what is right rather than what is in their self-interest. Xenophon put personal gain aside to lead his fellow Greeks out of a perilous situation in Persia–something very similar to what Lou Gerstner and Anne Mulcahy did in rescuing IBM and Xerox.
• Character matters in leadership. Alexander the Great had exceptional leadership skills that enabled him to conquer the eastern half of the ancient world, but he was ultimately destroyed by his inability to manage his phenomenal success. The corporate world is full of similar examples, such as the now incarcerated Dennis Kozlowski, who, flush with success at the head of his empire, was driven down the highway of self-destruction by an out-of-control ego.
• A great leader is one who challenges the conventional wisdom of the day and is able to think out of the box to pull off amazing feats. Hannibal did something no one in the ancient world thought possible; he crossed the Alps in winter to challenge Rome for control of the ancient world. That same innovative way of thinking enabled Serge Brin and Larry Page of Google to challenge and best two formidable competitors, Microsoft and Yahoo!
• A leader must have ambition to succeed, and Julius Caesar had plenty of it. He set Rome on the path to empire, but his success made him believe he was a living god and blinded him to the dangers that eventually did him in. The parallels with corporate leaders and Wall Street master-of-the-universe types are numerous, but none more salient than Hank Greenberg, who built the AIG insurance empire only to be struck down at the height of his success by the corporate daggers of his directors.
• And finally, leadership is about keeping a sane and modest perspective in the face of success and remaining focused on the fundamentals–the nuts and bolts of making an organization work day in and day out. Augustus saved Rome from dissolution after the assassination of Julius Caesar and ruled it for more than forty years, bringing the empire to the height of its power. What made him successful were personal humility, attention to the mundane details of building and maintaining an infrastructure, and the understanding of limits. Augustus set Rome on a course of prosperity and stability that lasted for centuries, just as Alfred Sloan, using many of the same approaches, built GM into the leviathan that until recently dominated the automotive business.

48 of 53 people found the following review helpful:
Who In the World Was Xenophon?, June 29, 2009
By James R. Holland "Author of Adventure Photographer"

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This book is about the leadership lessons that can be learned from studying some of the greatest western leaders of the ancient world. Those six great leaders were Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar and of course, Xenophon. Wait a minute, who was Xenophon and if he was so great why don't I recognize his name? Feeling a bit ignorant I asked my adult sons at dinner if they knew whom I was speaking about since they'd both had excellent Classical Educations while attending six years at Boston Latin School. My question produced nothing but blank looks. That made me feel a little better, but didn't answer my question.
Xenophon (430-354 BC), was "a young scholar from Athens, and is an example of a reluctant leader who came forward in time to crisis to fill a void. He found himself in command of an army of Greek mercenaries--mostly Spartans--trapped in the middle of the Persian Empire in the region known today as Iraq. Xenophon's mission was to organize these soldiers, motivate them, and get them home alive." Upon hearing this information, one of my sons quickly volunteered, "Oh, I get it, X is famous for actually having an Exit Strategy to get his army out of Iraq!" Touché, son!
The best part of this book is the brief over-views of the cultures and eras of these leaders and learning about their exploits. That part of the book was absolutely a page-turner and fortunately most of the book is comprised of these historic profiles and the lessons that could be garnered from their styles of leadership. I very much enjoyed learning about Xenophon, who is given credit in this book for showing Alexander the Great that there was a crack in the military might of the Persian Empire and Alexander made full use of that information as soon as he could. The weakest portion of the book is taking those examples of leadership techniques and comparing them to the founders and CEO's of major companies. That was just a bit much of an awkward reach for this reviewer. Fortunately, I suspect both the co-authors also realized that this comparison was somewhat weak and didn't dwell on it too much. As fabulously successful as some of the contemporary CEO's may have been, Sam Walton and Wal-Mart or Ray Kroc and McDonalds really don't stand up side-by-side with these former kings, emperors and generals. If those ancient leaders made a mistake thousands, maybe millions of their followers and perhaps they themselves were killed and the history of the world was changed forever. Another example of what happens to the major political players in the ancient world involved the death of Alexander's father King Philip. When the latter was struck down by an assassin,
Alexander and his mother immediately removed any political enemies including King Philip's new wife and infant son. He didn't say "My way or the highway" as was often-used in the book to describe a modern corporation management style, "Alexander ordered the executions of anyone he considered a rival.He spared his older half brother, but many members of the Macedonian aristocracy were put to death, including Philip's new wife and infant son, who were roasted alive over hot coals."
It was bites of reality like the above that made me feel the comparisons of those ancient conquerors and modern business builders and managers didn't belong on the same playing field.
If Dennis Kozlowki, started believing his own public relations press releases and dipping into company funds to enjoy a lavish, imperial lifestyle, he simply ended up disgraced, broke and in jail--not poisoned by his own generals, as was Alexander the Great. When Hank Greenberg was voted out of AIG by his board of directors for some of the same management mistakes made by Julius Caesar, the penalty wasn't exactly equal. In fact, the AIG Board of Directors didn't realize that they were doing Hank a great favor in light of what happened to AIG not long after their actions. Hank might have been able to avoid the company's fall.
John Prevas makes the history in the book come alive and I even ordered another of his best known books "Hannibal Crosses the Alps." ( Please feel free to read my review of that title). He is a true classical scholar who combined his scholarly study with his mountain climbing hobby and actually traveled the various routes believed to have been used by Hannibal when he totally surprised the Romans by bringing his entire army including the War Elephants over the Alps in mid-winter. By actually hiking the various very dangerous routes, Dr. Prevas pinpoints the only route that might have been passable for Hannibal's army. His on-the-ground research and writing remind me very much of another couple of historians who also liked to test their theories before publishing them. Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison of "Christopher Columbus, Mariner" adventures and Thor Heyerdahl of "Kon-Tiki" and "Ra and Ra II" fame, were the other two writers that popped into my mind as I read this excellent volume.
This is a well-done book that includes a short introduction by former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani. There are obvious lessons to be learned from studying history and from studying the leaders of past history. Many of the greatest leaders of the 20th Century were students of history including Harry S. Truman and Winston S. Churchill. They too were looking for helpful leadership advice and styles. I enjoyed it even though I felt the basic premise was a bit of a stretch. The book is still a good read.

48 of 53 people found the following review helpful:
Who In the World Was Xenophon?, June 29, 2009
By James R. Holland "Author of Adventure Photogr... (Boston, MA) - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This book is about the leadership lessons that can be learned from studying some of the greatest western leaders of the ancient world. Those six great leaders were Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar and of course, Xenophon. Wait a minute, who was Xenophon and if he was so great why don't I recognize his name? Feeling a bit ignorant I asked my adult sons at dinner if they knew whom I was speaking about since they'd both had excellent Classical Educations while attending six years at Boston Latin School. My question produced nothing but blank looks. That made me feel a little better, but didn't answer my question.
Xenophon (430-354 BC), was "a young scholar from Athens, and is an example of a reluctant leader who came forward in time to crisis to fill a void. He found himself in command of an army of Greek mercenaries--mostly Spartans--trapped in the middle of the Persian Empire in the region known today as Iraq. Xenophon's mission was to organize these soldiers, motivate them, and get them home alive." Upon hearing this information, one of my sons quickly volunteered, "Oh, I get it, X is famous for actually having an Exit Strategy to get his army out of Iraq!" Touché, son!
The best part of this book is the brief over-views of the cultures and eras of these leaders and learning about their exploits. That part of the book was absolutely a page-turner and fortunately most of the book is comprised of these historic profiles and the lessons that could be garnered from their styles of leadership. I very much enjoyed learning about Xenophon, who is given credit in this book for showing Alexander the Great that there was a crack in the military might of the Persian Empire and Alexander made full use of that information as soon as he could. The weakest portion of the book is taking those examples of leadership techniques and comparing them to the founders and CEO's of major companies. That was just a bit much of an awkward reach for this reviewer. Fortunately, I suspect both the co-authors also realized that this comparison was somewhat weak and didn't dwell on it too much. As fabulously successful as some of the contemporary CEO's may have been, Sam Walton and Wal-Mart or Ray Kroc and McDonalds really don't stand up side-by-side with these former kings, emperors and generals. If those ancient leaders made a mistake thousands, maybe millions of their followers and perhaps they themselves were killed and the history of the world was changed forever. Another example of what happens to the major political players in the ancient world involved the death of Alexander's father King Philip. When the latter was struck down by an assassin,
Alexander and his mother immediately removed any political enemies including King Philip's new wife and infant son. He didn't say "My way or the highway" as was often-used in the book to describe a modern corporation management style, "Alexander ordered the executions of anyone he considered a rival.He spared his older half brother, but many members of the Macedonian aristocracy were put to death, including Philip's new wife and infant son, who were roasted alive over hot coals."
It was bites of reality like the above that made me feel the comparisons of those ancient conquerors and modern business builders and managers didn't belong on the same playing field.
If Dennis Kozlowki, started believing his own public relations press releases and dipping into company funds to enjoy a lavish, imperial lifestyle, he simply ended up disgraced, broke and in jail--not poisoned by his own generals, as was Alexander the Great. When Hank Greenberg was voted out of AIG by his board of directors for some of the same management mistakes made by Julius Caesar, the penalty wasn't exactly equal. In fact, the AIG Board of Directors didn't realize that they were doing Hank a great favor in light of what happened to AIG not long after their actions. Hank might have been able to avoid the company's fall.
John Prevas makes the history in the book come alive and I even ordered another of his best known books "Hannibal Crosses the Alps." ( Please feel free to read my review of that title). He is a true classical scholar who combined his scholarly study with his mountain climbing hobby and actually traveled the various routes believed to have been used by Hannibal when he totally surprised the Romans by bringing his entire army including the War Elephants over the Alps in mid-winter. By actually hiking the various very dangerous routes, Dr. Prevas pinpoints the only route that might have been passable for Hannibal's army. His on-the-ground research and writing remind me very much of another couple of historians who also liked to test their theories before publishing them. Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison of "Christopher Columbus, Mariner" adventures and Thor Heyerdahl of "Kon-Tiki" and "Ra and Ra II" fame, were the other two writers that popped into my mind as I read this excellent volume.
This is a well-done book that includes a short introduction by former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani. There are obvious lessons to be learned from studying history and from studying the leaders of past history. Many of the greatest leaders of the 20th Century were students of history including Harry S. Truman and Winston S. Churchill. They too were looking for helpful leadership advice and styles. I enjoyed it even though I felt the basic premise was a bit of a stretch. The book is still a good read. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this | Permalink
Comment (1)

36 of 40 people found the following review helpful:
I loved this book!, June 16, 2009
By John Anderson (New York) - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
I found this book absolutely fascinating. I loved the way Steve was able to draw parallels between ancient and modern leaders, all the while highlighting key lessons and learnings on managment, strategy, and leadership for the reader. This book is a great gift for anyone interested in history as well as how to be the top of the game in their own careers. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this | Permalink
Comment

21 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
Brilliant combination: applied historical wisdom, June 19, 2009
By Chris Tyrrell (Princeton) - See all my reviews

It was a brilliant idea to combine the thorough and well-written historical analysis of John Prevas with the modern business insight of Steve Forbes. Power Ambition Glory takes the wisdom of the ages and points you directly to its relevance for today. This book should be read by every business leader (and aspiring business leader). Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this | Permalink
Comment

17 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
Great Lessons For Leaders, July 2, 2009
By Michael Gooch "Author of Wingtips with Spurs:... (Texas, USA) - See all my reviews

As a current corporate director of human resources, I am on a continual quest for books on leadership. That is, "good" books on leadership. I am especially interested in those that draw from an analogy. As an example, I really enjoyed the great work - High Altitude Leadership: What the World's Most Forbidding Peaks Teach Us About Success (J-B US non-Franchise Leadership) and the simple yet effective - The Tazie Effect. (Of course I am also partial to my own book, Wingtips with Spurs) With this tome by Forbes and John Prevas, the analogy is much closer to home than either of these titles. Business and government leadership are not only comparative, indeed they are often interdependent.

As we have the roman military and the Catholic Church to thank for our current leadership model, this book truly hits the mark with its great lessons and teachings. If you do not believe the comment in the preceding sentence, consider this simple example.

Obey us completely or be:

1. Put to death (Roman Military)

2. Excommunicated (Church)

3. Terminated (Modern Business)

Power Ambition Glory: The Stunning Parallels between Great Leaders of the Ancient World and Today . . . and the Lessons You Can Learn is a remarkable historical guide that easily slips into the business arena. Taking lessons from the rise and fall of empires, and then building correlations with our modern business leaders, the wise among us will take these lessons to heart and reflect them in our actions. This is an appealing book that notes a strong correlation between leaders throughout history and business/management leaders in the current era.

I hope you find this review helpful.

Michael L. Gooch, SPHR
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this | Permalink
Comment

20 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
Clear Concise and Relavant!, June 18, 2009
By Wilkie (New York) - See all my reviews

Great read, just finished on kindle, scholarly and very relevant without being pedantic as some history tomes can be. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this | Permalink
Comment

14 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
Dynomite! Dynamic mind and parallels to make you think., July 1, 2009
By R. Malinowski (Buffalo, NY) - See all my reviews

I found this to be a fantastic book from a man with a lot of insight into our world today. It is interesting that this masterpiece should be delivered during probably the worst administration in our countries history. I would like to send BHO a signed copy - we know he reads since accepting the book from Hugo Chavez another dictator.
Worth every penny as this book is "Dynamite! Dynamic mind and parallels to make you think". Two thumbs up my man - you need to buy this. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this | Permalink
Comment

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Order not what I expected., October 9, 2009
By William G. Krabler (Gig Harbor, WA USA) - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
Book is exceptional. Steve Forbes is one of my heroes in his wisdom and clarity of vision, politics, and life. However, I did order an autographed book and received one with no autograph. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this | Permalink
Comment

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Brilliant, September 12, 2009
By Edith Kurie "constant reader" (Huntersville, NC USA) - See all my reviews

Steve Forbes and John Prevasi have teamed up to write an uncanny testimony to the adage "The more things change the more they remain the same", illustrating the corruption and temptations of power and the loss of vision for reason, sound and balanced economy and governing. This might prove depressing; however they give hope in ways to change this tragic direction and bring about a strong and vibrant way of life. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this | Permalink
Comment

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Great History Review from which we can Learn!, August 23, 2009
By Suzanne Easter - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
We really should learn from our mistakes and those of others. Why keep making the same mistakes???? Read this book to enlighten yourself to the reality that history repeats itself and that's not always a good thing. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this | Permalink
Comment

A New Look At Leadership Skills, November 11, 2009
By Rick Rodgers "President of Rodgers & Associates" (Lancaster, PA USA) - See all my reviews

History lovers will enjoy this read with a fresh look at the great leaders of the ancient world. John Prevas does a masterful job of filling in the background of these great leaders with an eye to the leadership qualities that made them great. He also highlights their weaknesses that in some cases ultimately lead to their downfall. Then Steve Forbes draws on his vast knowledge of the leaders in the corporate world to draw parallels between those leadership qualities. His position as the publisher of Forbes Magazine gives him a unique perspective to view these modern leaders in action.

I appreciated the way they pulled it all together in the epilogue. The authors identified three key points that these leaders either possessed or were missing and contributed to their downfall. I would recommend this book to anyone that is interested in building their leaderships skills. It would be helpful to consider these three points when developing your leadership style.